mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
The Justices themselves had difficulty articulating just how a judge receiving a large campaign contribution in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. could autmatically be presumed to let that cloud his judgment. I think that judge found against the company that contributed to him on a couple other lesser cases. So to say some re-election money (if I read the transcripts right) bought him anew was a stretch. It was the nature and size of the donation that lent apparently enough suspicion of bias (all that was required by the winning premise, remember?) to Find that that judge should have recused himself.
Equally large and "out there" deserving of suspicion of bias was Kagan and Ginsburg presiding publicly over gay weddings in states. The question of law is "should the fed preside over states" on gay marriage approval". And there they were, ahead of arguments and the Hearing presiding over gay marriages in states. It's enough. It meets the standard of suspicion of bias. No honest objective person would declare thereafter that Ginsburg or Kagan would be impartial as to the question of law to be Heard.
That isn't the question that this hearing is going to determine. The question before the court has been explained to you on numerous occasions but since that doesn't fit your narrative you have decided to make up your own question instead.
Are you organically stupid or being wilfully abstruse? I'm hoping it's the latter for your sake.
AS YOU KNOW the point I was just making is that the standard of "suspicion of bias" by an objective observer (argued as the winning premise by Ted Olsen in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. that Found a judge should have recused himself) was met in the cases of Kagan and Ginsburg presiding as a federal entity over a state gay wedding.
There is no doubt, not even from you, that those two Justices have already displayed that their mind is settled on the question (you know, before arguments are Heard)..
There is a doubt of the bias you alleged, so much so you yourself cannot define it or even demonstrate that one even exists.
I do find it comical that you would call me organically stupid and then in the same sentence use "abstruse" incorrectly. Too funny.
These justices are not going to recuse themselves from hearing this case on the account of your anti-gay narrative. Tough shit for you I suppose. At least you'll have a built-in excuse you can cry about after June.